Since extreme winters and extreme summers are both predicted by climate change theory, I see both as evidence in support of it. What would counter that theory would be if the weather patterns stopped breaking records for a while. I wish that would happen, too.

Last year the Met Office said that Britain was going to have a warm winter. In previous years it had advised that British children would rarely see snow. And meanwhile, because November was warm the British Met Office is prepared to declare this (northern) winter a warm one!

This is only one set of examples, and I’m not even troubling you with East Anglia.

What model predicted what we’re currently seeing? And why should we take their word for the next fifty years plus?

Dude, it’s not just snowing in England, it’s snowing across the whole of Europe.

And I don’t know what Met office you’re talking about, but the Met Office in the UK thinks you’re wrong, Shabadoo:

“The mean UK temperature for December was 2.1 °C, making it the coldest for 14 years and colder than the long-term average for December of 4.2 °C”

From this page, explaining what the unseasonably cold winter and unseasonably heavy snowfall is caused by.

Where are you getting your information that this winter is warmer, Shabadoo? Because it doesn’t look like it’s tallying up with what the Met is actually saying. Or will say, given that the only month of winter they’ve got complete data for is December, and that was COLDER, not hotter.

Now you’re not making any sense, Shabadoo. You said a few comments ago that this winter was about to declared a warmer winter by the Met (which it isn’t) and then link to an article that disputes Global Warming on the basis that this winter is colder.

“In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.””

Since extreme winters and extreme summers are both predicted by climate change theory

LOL do you really believe that shit?! as I recall, the climate change fanatics have been preaching about how mild British winter will become.

Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

So a staffer says that something will be said, even though it isn’t, and this is recorded as being absurd, so when they DON’T say it, you’re still repeating it without checking whether they’re actually saying it?

I won’t be saying anything of the sort. I don’t make predictions, or claim to know either way what the hell is going on with the weather, the climate or anything else. All I know is that I think anyone who makes those claims who doesn’t have a swag of degrees and a career in having those claims peer-reviewed is to be viewed with deep, deep suspicion.

We don’t know what’s going on. We can’t possibly know. And the Blair’s and the Bolts who think they do are as arrogant in their presumption in those who push AGW down our throats.

All I ask for is consistency. And Bolt and Blair and the rest of the winged monkey parade bleeting about cold weather disproving Global Warming without pointing out the hot days with the same fervor are not. Nor are those who point only to the hot days.

Funny, the same people attacking Pachauri for “conflict of interest” have no issue with a corporate culture in which almost all members of large company boards are simultaneously on a whole lot of other boards.

If they’d be just as critical of this fundamental problem with the corporate world when it isn’t just a means of attacking an ideological opponent, then it would be much more credible.

Given the discovery of Climategate, the disaster that was copenhagen and now the deep freeze of the northern hemisphere, it surprises me that you still follow the climate change religion. The fraud that is the climate change religion has been exposed for the world to see and finally the public is turning on the evangalists. Rudd and Wong have a lot to worry about in 2010.

BTW – if you are willing to re-invent the predicted effects of AGW, like:

And there’s the possibility of a scenario where AGW leads to a definitely colder Europe due to a decrease in the Gulf Stream

why don’t you be more creative ans say something like….. And there’s the possibility of a scenario where AGW leads to an increase in the number of tooth fairys and santa clauses breading out of control across Europe….

You can’t claim on one hand that the IPCC report is gospel and that there is a consences on AGW while on the other hand claiming that AGW could lead to a colder Europe.

AGW is, clearly, global. There is an increasing heat content of the planet in it’s entirety.

This does not translate in uniform warming, or even that everywhere becomes warmer. The effects will vary over time and place. It’s is quite possible that some places may experience cooler climate as a result of AGW.

Claiming that this is inconsistent with AGW just demonstrates a poor understanding of what AGW actually is. It’s on a par with those who claim a failure of every year to be warmer than the preceding year, also refutes AGW.

Christopher Monckton will trouser $20,000 for an Australian Tour with Ian Plimer on backing vocals. To celebrate both The Australian and The Daily Telegraph printed extracts from Monckton’s letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd generously offering to brief Rudd about climate science.

As Tim Lambert also notes Monckton’s letter to News Ltd referred to the PM incorrectly as “His Excellency Mr Kevin Rudd”. As is becomming commonplace with the Daily Telegraph, it printed the letter with the incorrect, mocked up title (helllooooo “Godwin Grant” anyone??). But who really cares, it’s the vibe of the thing, right? And just as Monckton seemingly tarts up his CV with untruths, so too does he look away whilst typing when it comes to science facts.

THE peak UN body on climate change has been dealt another humiliating blow to its credibility after it was revealed a central claim of one of its benchmark reports – that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of global warming – was based on a “speculative” claim by an obscure Indian scientist.

Mate, they will hold on desperately to their belief in human induced climate change even though the doggy science it is based on is turning sour and being exposed to the world. They are the equivalent of a catholic that sees Jesus in a mouldy piece of toast and prays to it.

And you’ve got to admire the abject stupidity that thinks attacking the bearers of bad news somehow saves us from the bad news itself

You are a denialist of climategate.

The problem for you Jeremy is that you have placed your belief in scientists that have been exposed and discredited by their own fraud.

Hence Climategate emails, the fraud around their theory about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers.

These are not bears of just bad news, they are snake oil salesman that are preaching the end of the world. They are no better than the religious freaks of years gone by who preached “The end of the world is near”.

What dogma is that, Jeremy? Christians teach care and respect for the environment. Oh sorry – you were just lying to make a point. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, I just forgot I was on a lefty blog for a moment.

Who the hell mentioned Christianity? I meant the dogma that is the bizarre belief that the Earth will magically absorb anything that we throw at it.

Bill – I’m not in “denial” about “climategate”. It’s a confected outrage that contradicts the established science not a jot.

It’s undoubtedly a public relations problem for those who are trying to get governments to commit to minimising their impact; it’s not in any way a scientific one.

Tell me, do you have the faintest idea what “hide the decline” meant? I’m guessing you’re stupid enough to think it was some diabolical scientist trying to “hide” a “decline” in world temperatures or something.

I mean, Bill was really shovelling it uphill when making the idiotic claim that Lefty ‘denies’ climategate (even a child can pull that one apart), but now you’re calling him a liar over something he never said.

Climategate proves nothing at all. It raises some questions, but by no possible interpretation can it be considered proof of anything.

That you and Bill continue to make such a transparently false claim says far more about your own dishonesty than it does anything else.

The Himalayan glacier issue, on the other hand, is extremely relevant and potentially very damaging to the credibility of the IPCC. If shown to be correct then it casts enormous doubt on the scientific basis of all claims made by that body.

Christianity is in fact a religion. It has a dogma to the opposite effect of the one described. No religion believes or teaches that “we can do whatever we like to the planet without any consequence” .

Jeremy was just making shit up. He was attributing a manifestly false belief to religious dogma. I demonstrated that in the case of Christianity the opposite is in fact the true position.

Mondo Gaia worship is common among AGW types, having been promoted by James Lovelock as an alternative religion.

So it’s OK for you to characterise an evidence-based belief in the science underpinning AGW theory as religious, but a contemptible lie for someone to similarly characterise a refusal to accept that science?

What a monumental (and thoroughly unintelligent) double-standard. Your bullshit is stinkier than usual on this one.

FWIW using the term believe in science seems odd to me. One either accepts the principle tenets that underpin the research and scientific theories by use of reason, logic and research to generate facts, or one doesn’t. The faith based position of belief is more suited to those who do not apply logic and reason but simply accept something as fact because it accords with their own worldview. Anti scientific statements of the variety expressed by Bill and his mate are firmly in this category.

Mondo, try to be a little bit logical. My point is that is that there are no religious dogma to the effect suggested by Jeremy.

On the other hand, AGW is a dogmatic set of beliefs, extending in the case of some adherents to belief in and worship of Gaia. There is no equivalent on the sceptical side, just an absence or of belief in AGW, or in some cases denial.

The only contradiction here is the contradiction between your casuistry and common sense.

HPS is a really interesting field of study. Chalmers has a great introduction.

The alleged science in the AGW is far from settled. We know too little about the factors which influence climate change to sensibly justify the dire predictions being made. To approach it other than sceptically makes no sense.

Climate science is not an area whose conclusions can be confirmed by calculation or experiment. Nor is it a description of a well-understood system.

At best it is a new theory based on models which don’t even come close to accommodating all relevant variables. As such, the assertion that its conclusions are 90% certain is not supported by the work that has been done to date.

Michael, it is only the climate change models and the Hockey Stick that enable the AGW proponents to do their Chicken Little act. I agree that if both of these are correct than we have a problem. My main issue is that the ‘scientists’ behind them do not want to open up and allow them to be verified.

We know too little about the factors which influence climate change to sensibly justify the dire predictions being made.

To this:

Yes, but saying the Greenhouse effect is well established does not prove AGW.

Your first statement is one of a broader understanding about the factors which underpin climate change. These are well established. Your second statement is quite different. Are you now walking back from your first statement about how much is known about climate change?

It is up to those who don’t accept AGW to explain why chucking a whole heap of GHGEs into the atmosphere over a sustained period wouldn’t have any impact on global temperature. To date nobody has been able to do this with any intellectual honesty.